WotC Talks OGL... Again! Draft Coming Jan 20th With Feedback Survey; v1 De-Auth Still On

Following last week's partial walk-back on the upcoming Open Game Licence terms, WotC has posted another update about the way forward.

The new update begins with another apology and a promise to be more transparent. To that end, WotC proposes to release the draft of the new OGL this week, with a two-week survey feedback period following it.

WotC Walks Back Some OGL Changes, But Not All

Wizards of the Coast has finally made a statement regarding the OGL. The statement says that the leaked version was a draft designed to solicit feedback and that they are walking back some problematic elements, but don't address others--most notably that the current OGL v1.0a is still being...

www.enworld.org

They also list a number of points of clarity --

• Videos, accessories, VTT content, DMs Guild will not be affected by the new license, none of which is related to the OGL
• The royalties and ownership rights clauses are, as previously noted, going away

OGL v1 Still Being 'De-Authorized'
However, OGL v1.0a still looks like it's being de-authorized. As with the previous announcement, that specific term is carefully avoided, and like that announcement it states that previously published OGL v1 content will continue to be valid; however it notably doesn't mention that the OGL v1 can be used for content going forward, which is a de-authorization.

The phrase used is "Nothing will impact any content you have published under OGL 1.0a. That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a." -- as noted, this does not make any mention of future content. If you can't publish future content under OGL 1.0a, then it has been de-authorized. The architect of the OGL, Ryan Dancey, along with WotC itself at the time, clearly indicated that the license could not be revoked or de-authorized.

While the royalty and ownership clauses were, indeed, important to OGL content creators and publishers such as myself and many others, it is also very important not to let that overshadow the main goal: the OGL v1.0a.

Per Ryan Dancey in response this announcement: "They must not. They can only stop the bleeding by making a clear and simple statement that they cannot and will not deauthorize or revoke v1.0a".

Ryan Dancey -- Hasbro Cannot Deauthorize OGL

I reached out to the architect of the original Open Gaming License, former VP of Wizard of the Coast, Ryan Dancey, and asked his opinion about the current plan by WotC to 'deauthorize' the current OGL in favour of a new one. He responded as follows: Yeah my public opinion is that Hasbro does...

www.enworld.org

Amend At-Will
Also not mentioned is the leaked draft's ability to be amended at-will by WotC. An agreement which can be unilaterally changed in any way by one party is not an agreement, it's a blank cheque. They could simply add the royalties or ownership clauses back in at any time, or add even more onerous clauses.

All-in-all this is mainly just a rephrasing of last week's announcement addressing some of the tonal criticisms widely made about it. However, it will be interesting to see the new draft later this week. I would encourage people to take the feedback survey and clearly indicate that the OGL v1.0a must be left intact.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I’m concerned that litigation could end up with WotC spinning off from 5e altogether and I like the current measured approach WotC are taking.

Literally the only people who can make this happen are WotC, do you understand that?

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Ultimately the compromise is GOL 1.0a stands, but 5.5e's SRD isn't under it. Instead, they'll make traditional contracts for 3PP, but leave fans making free stuff alone.

Done.

but no, they're so desperate to not create another Pathfinder, they need to burn the older agreement to the ground.

Need try and burn it to the ground, but they can't.

 

[Jer]

Essentially the forums are turning into an echo chamber where anyone who isn’t with the OGL movement is a collaborator. That’s what you mean when you say White Knighting right? We just don’t hate WotC like you do and changing the OGL hasn’t wiped out our goodwill to them and would like folks to put the brakes on before it all ends in tears.

So what you're saying is "this doesn't affect me, so I don't care. But it does affect me if people are upset at Wizards so I want people to stop."

That's fine, but you do need to understand that many folks on these boards are actually publishers who publish work under the OGL and Wizards, as their business partner, has just announced that they're revoking the terms of a license that they have always up until this point positioned as being irrevocable.

You do understand why this makes people, you know, kinda mad, right?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And the the new "OGL" isn't an open gaming license, it's a walled garden. For example, WoTC has inserted the right to monitor content - sure they say it's only objectionable content, but they will be setting the rules. And even more blatant, they maintain the right to change the agreement AT ANY TIME (with just 30 days notice), which means nothing they say is the least bit binding - and makes them calling this an Open license laughable.

It's also not open because it doesn't contain the concept of "Open Game Content", so isn't a share-alike licence.

 

[Stalker0]

Getting rid of OGL 1.0 is not the end of the world....depending on what OGL 2.0 has.

If OGL 2.0 is a good agreement AND contains an irrevocable clause....than to me that's a win. Old content doesn't have to shift, new content goes onto to the new license, with trust that it won't change, and all is well.

Of course, this depends on the criteria of 2.0, if its a bad agreement, than it simply stirs the pot.

My issue is that people are taking the approach of "unless 1.0 is made irrevocable, nothing can be ok".... and that is not the only good path forward.

 

[Charlaquin]

So if this was the exact same as the 1.0 expect it had the anti bigotry, and irrevocable added to it, would you guys still complain about 1.0 being deauthorized?

Depends on how the anti-bigotry provisions are worded. I certainly don’t want bigotry in D&D, but right now I’m not seeing a way to use an open license to prevent it without giving WotC an unacceptable degree of control over 3rd parties’ content.

 

[Lichbeard]

Will someone do a GoFundMe or something and raise a few million and just go ahead and Sue WOTC first? This isn't ever going to end until a court of law makes a ruling. As long as WOTC feels big $$ give them the ability to sidestep the protections in a legal contract they are going to keep at it.

Everything else is a PR campaign. How bad do they have to look in doing so? Whatever the least bad they have to look and still get the job done is what they will do.

Lets just get this done as well. There public statements intending to change the OGL is already enough to trigger a suit. Those effected just need to join together in a suit against WOTC and see what the courts say. You have millions of gamers who would chip in a few bucks to get this done and over with.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Getting rid of OGL 1.0 is not the end of the world....depending on what OGL 2.0 has.

If OGL 2.0 is a good agreement AND contains an irrevocable clause....than to me that's a win. Old content doesn't have to shift, new content goes onto to the new license, with trust that it won't change, and all is well.

Of course, this depends on the criteria of 2.0, if its a bad agreement, than it simply stirs the pot.

The issue here is that no proposed version of OGL 2.0 has any of the following features:

1) Open Gaming Content - the ability to share content, not just use the SRD.

2) Irrevocability - on the direct contrary, so far it's been "modify at 30 days notice".

3) Clear guidance about what is and isn't allowed, and some sort of appeal process.

Without those, no matter nice the rest is, it's just not an OGL.

 

[DMZ2112]

No, that's what they said in last week's announcement. Existing content remains OK, but you can't use the license going forward. The license is still de-authorized.

Okay, please help me out here. I understand this is not a retraction --it's a blog post. If this is not a sufficient statement of intention to retract, I'd like to help defend that position, but I don't follow this reading.

I don't see how anything could "always be licensed under OGL 1.0a" if the OGL 1.0a is deauthorized. I have understood deauthorization to be an all-or-nothing premise since the earliest moments of this discussion, and I don't see how that sword does not cut both ways.

Assuming it is legally possible, wouldn't deauthorization make it impossible to license anything under the OGL 1.0a, regardless of whether it was published in 2000 or after the release of the new closed license? On the flip side of the coin, if material published in 2000 remains licensed despite deauthorization, how do you weaponize that deauthorization to refuse licensure to future material under the same license?

The previous statement was that material licensed under the OGL 1.0a would be unaffected by OGL 1.1, and I understand why that is a nothing statement, or at least I think I do.

This statement specifically says that material licensed under the OGL 1.0a will continue to be licensed under the OGL 1.0a, and I don't understand how that's possible if Wizards' plans still involve deauthorization.

 

[TheSword]

So what you're saying is "this doesn't affect me, so I don't care. But it does affect me if people are upset at Wizards so I want people to stop."

That's fine, but you do need to understand that many folks on these boards are actually publishers who publish work under the OGL and Wizards, as their business partner, has just announced that they're revoking the terms of a license that they have always up until this point positioned as being irrevocable.

You do understand why this makes people, you know, kinda mad, right?

I do, and if WotC hadn’t offered up an alternative then I would be more supportive. But I have, and it’s fair - as an outsider looking in. In fact it’s more than fair - it’s generous. But because it isn’t as generous as before people are talking like it’s worthless which isn’t the case.

It’s also business, and isn’t personal.